The court held the policy’s Employer’s Liability Exclusion precluded coverage for the injured individual who was deemed to be an employee of the insured. Craft v. Access L.L.C., 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 179794 (W.D. La. Sept. 2, 2025).

Charles Craft worked for FL Crane & Sons, Inc.. The general contractor of the project, Lemoine Company, LLC, hired FL Crane to do work on the project. Lemoine rented a crane from Morrow Equipment Company, LLC, and hired a crane operator from Skyhook Ops, LLC. Burlington was Skyhook’s insurer.

Craft claimed his left arm was injured while working atop a scaffolding when Skyhook caused the scaffolding system to be pulled apart when operating a crane.

Craft sued Lemoine and others. Lemoine was dismissed as Craft’s statutory employer. Craft then named Burlington Insurance Company, Skyhook’s insurer, as a defendant. Burlington filed a motion for summary judgment seeking a determination that the policy did not covered claims against Skyhook.

Burlington relied on its Employer’s Liability Exclusion. The exclusion stated that the policy did not apply to bodily injury to “any ’employee’ . . . of any insured, or a person hired to do work for or on behalf of any insured, arising out of and during employment by any insured.”

Burlington insured Skyhook and Craft’s claims against Skyhook were for bodily injury. But Craft was not employed by or hired to do work for Skyhook. Burlington argued that (1) Lemoine employed Craft and (2) Lemoine was an additional insured under the policy. The court focused on whether Lemoine was an insured falling within the exclusion and whether Craft was an employee covered by the exclusion

The policy added as an additional insured any organization for whom Skyhook was performing operations and an agreement was entered that the organization be added as an additional insured on Skyhook’s policy. Further, the added party had to be responsible for bodily injury. Craft argued that this language made Lemoine an “additional insured” only where it was vicariously liable for Skyhook’s acts. The court disagreed and found that Lemoine was an insured covered by the exclusion.

Craft next argued he was not an employee of either Skyhook or Lemoine because he was never paid, controlled or directed by either. The exclusion, however, applied not only to vairous types of employees,” but also to anyone “hired to do work for or on behalf of any insured.” This meant anyone hired to do work for any insured and was injured from doing such work was uncovered by the policy. Therefore, Craft was precluded by the exclusion.

Thus, upon finding the Lemoine was an “insured,” falling under the exclusion and that Craft was an “employee,” also falling under the exclusion, Craft’s claims against defendants were not covered by the policy.